Hey, there! Log in / Register
MBTA looks to buy even more Red Line cars, to come after the arrival of the ones already on order
By adamg on Mon, 12/12/2016 - 1:07pm
MassLive reports the T powers that be are expected to vote on a new $277-million order with the Chinese company gearing u to build Red Line cars in Springfield for an additional 120 Red Line cars - turns out that buying new would be cheaper than rehabbing the old cars that would remain.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
How about some new switches?
Or signals?
Legitimate question
But it's not a zero-sum game. New cars have to be ordered in parallel with other system upgrades.
This is actually a pretty decent-sounding deal, as long as the new cars are moderately reliable. $2.3 million per car is about the same as Chicago is paying for their new 7000 series, even though their order is for more units and their cars are significantly smaller than the Red Line, and less than NYC is paying for their 179s. I believe the original order actually was for even less, on the order of $2m/car. As long as the cars work well, this is a good deal. (Don't give Gov Chuck any credit for this: the order was finalized before he was elected.)
The 01500s and 01600s are knocking on half a century; only the R32s in New York are older (and the Red Line cars will likely be retired after them, making them the oldest operating heavy rail cars in the country). They're tanks (as are the R32s) but they're tired and break down about as frequently as you'd expect a 50-year-old vehicle with millions of miles on the odometer to—still more than they should. The 01700s are younger, but still pushing 30, and the newer cars (four door Bombardier 01800s) will be a quarter century old by the time the new cars arrive, meaning the cost to rehab them is less than the cost to buy new equipment (and you'd lose the scale ecomony of having a single type on the property). We just have to hope the new cars (01900s?) are less resembling of the Bredas or Rotems, and more like the Siemens or Kinkis.
As for signals and switches. This is more complex and one probably has to do with the other. The new cars should be built so that they are able to be easily retrofitted to run with CBTC without dramatic upgrades. I say should because I could see the T massively effing this up somehow. CBTC would help the Red Line, but having a fleet of all new trains with better braking and acceleration will have benefits even without the addition of a modernized signal system. Installing CBTC would be a long and costly process and not all of its benefits will be realized because of some pecularities of the Red Line (like the close stop spacing downtown or the 10 mph Harvard Curve which will never be faster, CBTC or not; and Alewife will greatly hamper operations since it was never really designed to be a terminal staton). This is not to say it shouldn't be done, but is to say that it is not the be-all and end-all panacea sometimes promised.
Track and switches are easier, and there are certainly improvements which could be made to allow for better operation, the most common issues should be identified, triaged and fixed.
tl;dr: short term track systems improvements should be increased. New cars replacing cars 30-55 years old will help a lot and should be built for CBTC compatibility. CBTC probably costs more than the new fleet and should be planned, but as a longer term project. (This assumes the T has anything resembling a long term plan, which it does not.)
Exactly. What good are new
Exactly. What good are new trains if there are signal and track problems. At least this will eliminate the dreaded "disabled train" issues...
Thanks!
I was just throwing off some snark, but I appreciate your highly- educated&useful answer! (No sarcasm, it was very enlightening! )
Even if they outlast the R32s
Even if they outlast the R32s, the Red Line cars won't be the oldest in the land. The PATCO rapid transit cars, operated on the interstate line from Philadelphia to Camden and Lindenwold, were built in 1968 and are being rebuilt to run another 20-25 years. They are already older than the 01500/01600 Red Line cars, and will still be running when they are gone.
The Control Board was already given a presentation a powerpoint presentation on why CBTC would have minimal benefits for the Red Line back in September, when MBTA management started making the case for today's vote:
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Board_Meetings/Red%20Line%...
What was Alewife designed to
What was Alewife designed to be, if not a terminal? Wasn't the Arlington extension dead by the time Alewife was designed? It's a massive parking garage designed to intercept people who drive from further west, which makes a lot more sense at a terminal than an intermediate station. And how would the tracks be different? It's pretty similar to Forest Hills and Braintree.
No train storage?
I may be wrong, but compared to Braintree and Forest Hills, there is no place to store trains at Alewife.
As far as parking goes, it's at the end of the highway part of Route 2, so the parking would have made sense even if the line went to Arlington. Just like how Wellington is the park and ride stop on the Orange Line north.
There is an underground
There is an underground storage yard at Alewife that can hold six 6-car trains (36 cars).
The distance from the crosovers east of the station to the station platform is a bit long if you want to try to run frequencies any better than 3.
The problem is that Alewife
The problem is that Alewife gets twice as many trains as Braintree, and also that the crossover is some distance away from the station, and limited to 10 mph. So arriving trains have to crawl over the crossover (potentially blocking a departing train), then go all the way to the station, change ends, then go all the way to the crossover and once again potentially cross it slowly while blocking an incoming train. This means that there's a bunch of time taken up when each track is unavoidably occupied. However, at this point, the limiting factor is probably the dwell time at Downtown Crossing and Park St and the resulting congestion anyway. But once they fix that with the new trains and more permissive signal speeds, the terminal at Alewife may well become a problem.
Quite different than Forest Hills or Braintree
First of all, Braintree has half the number of trains as Alewife, so it doesn't really matter.
Forest Hills has storage past the station (so does Alewife, but not as much) but the interlocking for Forest Hills is much closer to the platform than at Alewife. The crossover begins about 100' (maybe less) from the end of the platform. At Alewife, on the other hand, the crossovers are under Russell Field (as best as I can infer from where the train sits on a curve when waiting for the platforms to clear), about 800 feet from the station. So the train has to wrong-rail for 800 feet to get to the station platform. This adds nearly a minute per train getting in and out of the station on the wrong track, which can ripple down the line if there's any sort of disruption or bunching.
Here's how a terminal should work:
Platforms 1 and 2 handle trains. Track 1 is the normal inbound track, 2 is outbound; but either can handle a train. Trains arriving from track 2 cross over to track 1, change ends and depart on track 1, or they run in to platform 2, and cross over on the departure to track 1. Under normal operations, starting with an empty system, assuming 6 minute recovery time:
0:00 train A arrives and crosses to track 1
0:04 train B arrives and pulls straight in to track 2
0:06 train A departs on track 1
0:08 train C arrives and crosses to track 1 ^
0:10 train B departs, crossing over to track 1 ^
0:12 train D arrives and pulls straight in to track 2
0:14 train C departs on track 1
0:16 train E arrives and crosses over to track 1 ^
0:18 train D departs crossing over to track 1 ^
etc.
^ denotes movements which foul the entire interlocking.
In theory, with two minutes of separation, all of this should work, but it's tight.
Now, let's assume there is some sort of fault, and instead of arriving at exact intervals, there is no train for 10 minutes and then three trains arrive at two minute intervals (because MBTA, right? but really because the trains encounter various loading and branching issues and this sort of bunching is normal). Let's assume that the trains take a minimum of 3 minutes to turn and that the starter won't send them out at an interval of less than 3 minutes to minimize downstream bunching:
0:00 train A arrives and crosses to track 1
0:06 train A departs on track 1
0:10 train B arrives and crosses to track 1
0:12 train C arrives and pulls straight in to track 2
0:13 train B departs track 1
0:14 train D would arrive, but has to wait for train B to clear the interlocking leaving the station, so it has to stop and hold short of the interlocking, and can't move in to the interlocking until 0:15
0:16 train D moves through the interlocking. Train C would like to pull out, but has to wait for train D to pass through the interlocking.
0:17 train C is able to pull out.
This sort of interference can ripple pretty quickly. Adding 30+ seconds between where the interlocking should be and where it is causes a much lower margin of error. And because Alewife is at the end of a rather congested, branched line, these sort of gaps form (this morning, for instance, there were two 10 minute gaps between 8 and 9 a.m.). This makes sense: if we assume that arrivals are exponentially distributed with an average headway of 4 minutes, 8% of trains (about one an hour) will arrive with at least a 10 minute headway. This is actually pretty normal. It can be recovered from. But the long track leads beyond the interlocking at Alewife make these sorts of issues harder to recover from, since when a train has a large gap, it can impact several trains behind it.
Ok, but was Alewife not
Ok, but was Alewife not designed to be the terminal? Or was it supposed to be the terminal but they screwed up when placing the crossover?
Also, the Alewife crossover used to have a 25 mph limit. They only lowered it to 10 mph on crossing moves after a derailment 6 or 7 years ago.
CHINESE COMPANY IN SPRINGFIELD?
Does Trumpy know about this ?
Problem would be if they were made in this country
the cost of the cars would probably be much higher.
They are being made in Springfield MA
The new cars are being made here in Springfield, MA. The shells will be made in China and the final build out is done in Springfield with local labor.
They are being made in Springfield MA
The new cars are being made here in Springfield, MA. The shells will be made in China and the final build out is done in Springfield with local labor.
To respond seriously, he's
To respond seriously, he's probably not aware of what Massachusetts is doing with its rolling stock for one of the lines in the subway system.
Given that he's been giving scares by making statement to various government projects like the F-35 or Airforce One. Or he could praise it as bringing in jobs for Americans like he did for Softbank. Let's not unnecessarily roll the dice, and at least at this moment, entertain the small joy that we actually can speculate the possibility for genuine hope of a better Red Line with all new trains.
Two lines
They're also building the new Orange Line cars.
I'm aware. It's rhetorical. I
I'm aware. It's rhetorical. I think you've seen me around enough to guess I would be aware. The point is I doubt Trump is even aware what Boston is buying new rolling stock, much less knowing who we're buying it from. And currently little to gain and a lot to lose if we make him become aware.
U.S. MASSIVE trade deficits with the PRC
Unfortunately, this wouldn't even put a minor dent our 30 plus year, non-stop trade deficits with the PRC. I agree with whoever says we need to take a serious look at our 'free' trade, especially with China. If HRC said the same thing as Trump on this issue,I'd have agreed with her. Shit is effed up and bullshit.
rare good sense and wise
rare good sense and wise financial management, despite what the herald is going to scream.
It's cheaper to replace when you don't maintain anything.
Just like the current OL cars, which were never rebuilt as planned.
I had to visit a friend along the J train in NY this past weekend. A train of 52-year-old R32s* showed up. It didn't catch fire or derail.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R32_(New_York_City_Subway_car)
The R32s …
Are moved to different lines in the summer so they spend time outdoors.
Why?
Because their air conditioning systems are feeble enough that they move them from the C train (all underground) to other lines for the summer. NYC is retiring the R32s about when the T is retiring the 01500s and 01600s. Both have been reliable cars for half a century, but both are past time for retirement.
why aren't mbta trains "swappable"?
a naive question:
why aren't the Blue, Red and Orange line trains the same interchangeable trains? wouldn't it be cheaper to have one type of train that could be mass produced in bigger quantities, swapped out between lines as needed (etc) cheaper than having each of the lines run separate trains?
Like in Nyc and European systems?
Because the lines are physically different
The fact that (at least parts of) each line was developed independently 100+ years ago means that each line has different constraints on the geometry of its rail cars. You could theoretically make rail cars that fit all 3 lines, but they would be considerably smaller than the existing trains (on the Red Line in particular), so you would lose capacity. You would also run into problems with different platform heights and lengths, 3rd rail vs. pantograph, and the lack of an easy way to move cars between lines.
While you're right that the
While you're right that the dimensions of the trains are different and thus makes it hard to just shuffle one train from one line to another. The MBTA has done tactics to reduce workload. The old Blue Line Train and Orange Line trains used the same guts so maintenance work and parts needs was the same.
NYC
The New York subway does not have cars that can be used on all lines.
IRT cars (the numbered lines) are shorter and more narrow than BMT and IND cars (the lettered lines).
Correct.
Correct.
If I recall correctly, when NY made some major step decades ago (probably the creation of the IND), the new spec was slightly larger than existing rolling stock (BMT). In addition to identifying areas of possible clearance concern from track/tunnel/station blueprints, they took steps for positive verification.
They took one of the older pieces of rolling stock, stripped it down, cut the frame, welded in enough steel to match the new design length/width, and built out the body to put what were essentially curb-feelers at the dimensions of the new stock. They then drove it through the entire section of the system which was going to be converted - marking all spots (arches, platform edges, curves) which required reconstruction.
I'm not 100% certain, but I think the gauge is all the same in both the A and B divisions.
I'm not 100% certain, but I
Track gauge, yes. Loading gauge, no.
IIRC, the blue line tunnels
IIRC, the blue line tunnels are significantly smaller than the OL tunnels, which are in turn smaller than the red tunnels. While the tracks themselves are the same, so theoretically you could then start running blues thru the orange and red tunnels, all the trains are different lengths and widths and heights so you're talking about major major redoing of stations and platforms and all of that. Plus reduced capacity from the smaller trains.
doing it the other way around (red trains to everywhere) would require so much tunnelwork it's an absurd proposition.,
Blue & Orange
There was apparently some discussion of retrofitting the old Blue Line cars to run in 8-car sets on the Orange Line as a stop-gap before new cars can be procured. Apparently it would have worked, in theory (both cars have a loading gauge of streetcars since both use tunnels that were once streetcar tunnels and the Orange Line is straighter, so can accommodate longer cars) but in practice it would have cost quite a bit to retrofit them, and they serve better for replacements parts than in service on the line.
In theory … this should all be academic in 2-3 years. And, yes, to echo an earlier comment upthread, having all the Red and Orange line cars build with the same "guts" (traction motors, etc) should allow for economies of scale up in Everett and for overhauls. Now, if only they could build a spur from the Orange Line to Cabot, they could have one single on-line maintenance facility (like how, until 1952, Blue Line cars were towed across the Longfellow and then through the tunnel to Bennett for major overhaul).
New Cars Are Cheaper, But Also Obsolete
Toronto
Montreal
New York
Pluses and Minuses
You are, of course, right about the additional capacity... However, articulated cars come with some downsides to be considered too...
You can't add/remove cars on the fly (not something MBTA does currently, but on the list of downsides and something that is done in cities like Washington).
You can't swap out paired cars to build a new X-car set when some subset of cars are out of service for maintenance/repair/cleanup/etc.
You need lifts that raise up the entire X-car set when you want to do maintenance/repair, even if only one one car of the set.
You need a maintenance facility that is long enough to raise/store all the cars at once, rather than pulling in just the 1/2 cars needing work. e.g., recofiguring a shed from "wide" (6 sets of 2-car trains) to "long" (2 sets of 6 car trains), assuming the facility is able to be reconfigured at all.
The gains in capacity do not always make up for the logistical costs of running such trains. I have no idea on the specifics for MBTA, but it's not, on the face of it, an obviously bad idea.
Elmer - Let me see you address this rebuttal
I saw that post before. Last time I just stayed quiet, but since you are bringing it up with the exact same points but without responding back to any counterpoint while now using harsher words like calling the trains we are ordering obsolete.
The thing is, I'm not a train expert. But I do lurk and follow people whom make very strong points. Like lurking in archboston where the idea was brought up before. The first ~8 posts did not give a strong indication about this idea. http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4678
In short, well I'll just quote F-Line
I'm so curious about F-Stop,
I'm so curious about F-Stop, he seems so knowledgeable about so much wrt transit, what's his deal??
Does anyone actually know …
Who F-Line is?
A Couple Of Frank Sinatra Songs Come To Mind — Ⓣhat's Life!
"New York, New York" — If the trains can make it there, etc..
"I Did It My Way" — Which, of course, refers to the Ⓣ.
To answer the rebuttal, I would point out that Toronto is not very much unlike Boston, and articulated trains have been running there for several years now. Montreal's system is highly specialized, but their new articulated trains are being delivered in much shorter time than Boston's. So, it's not like this is some sort of experimental technology — it's becoming the new standard, which is why I said Boston's "new" trains will be obsolete.
I would also point out that the Ⓣ already has articulated trains on the Green Line — the most serpentine line of all. It's hard to imagine articulated Red or Orange Line cars would be very difficult. Articulated trains ought to be less expensive because of the multiple control cabs that are eliminated. Potentially, you could purchase more trains for the same amount of money.
I acknowledge the trade-off of not being able to split up a malfunctioning train set, but it doesn't seem to outweigh all the advantages the new design affords.
Finally, F-Line is discounting the reduction in dwell times that articulated trains make possible. Right now, the dwell time is affected by the time it takes passengers on the most crowded car to exit and board. On the current trains, you can move to the very back of the car to make room for passengers, but then you're trapped there. If you want to get off at the next station, you've got to fight your way through the crowd.
With articulated trains, passengers can move freely between cars. After boarding, people can move to less crowded cars, so there's more room for new passengers to board; or move to a less crowded exit when you want to get out. Exiting and boarding is easier and faster, especially on the most crowded platforms. Indeed, busy transfer stations such as Park Street and Downtown Crossing would particularly benefit from the crowd distribution ability of articulated trains.
Rebuttal answer, question:
Wouldn't a dramatic reduction in dwell times at the busiest stations be the most effective way to improve performance and maximize passenger throughput, even within the existing headways?
Sure, it probably won't happen, but chalk it up to another missed opportunity to improve rapid transit — continuing to embrace systems and practices of the past, assuming things can never be changed, and failing to imagine the future.
" Ⓣhat's Life! "
Lately?
Riding the T is like Cake's Frank Sinatra:
We know of an ancient radiation
That haunts dismembered constellations
A faintly glimmering radio station
We know of an ancient radiation
That haunts dismembered constellations
A faintly glimmering radio station
While Frank Sinatra sings "Stormy Weather"
The flies and spiders get along together
Cobwebs fall on an old skipping record
Is it possible, though?
The T has some really old tunnels with very sharp curves and turns. The Boylston curve determines the design of every train on the Green Line, for example. If the Red/Blue/Orange lines have an artifact like that, that would explain why they went with paired trains instead of articulated ones.
There You Go — That Proves It's Possible!
( we've had articulated Green Line trains for many years — they work )
I have my doubts that it is
I have my doubts that it is cheaper to replace than refurb but we will see I guess. Seems we need more sets either way. Perhaps more importantly, what about the tracks/switches?
Soooooo
Let me get this right.
The State.. who has only seen a 3/4th scale mockup and not a working prototype (that rolled down a MBTA rail line at least once) of a car by a company that has not produced a single car for the US Market, EVER.. just ordered 120 more?
Riiight. This will not end well.
I want to believe that proper engineering will make each and every car roll off the assembly line in Springfield a winner.. but outside of the Siemens BL cars, the T doesn't have a good history of rail stock procurement.
I remember the day I was on a "new" Breda LRV way back when and the vehicle lost power, came to a halt and I went flying 20 feet. Those cars have had issues from day one. Yeah you can argue until the cows come home who was to blame (IMHO think it was a little on both sides), but in the end we ended up paying for crappy cars.
I have little faith a company who has never produced a single transit car for the US Market, let alone for an antiquated system such as the T's, will produce a car without a single issue. They are going to be buggy as hell. I'll be very surprised.. very if they come off as problem free as the Siemens cars did.
(but.. the saving grace is that the T's first order are the first cars.. 'showcase' cars they will produce. They have to be 'perfect' if they want to attract (and keep) US business. So only time will will tell)
Hit and miss
The T has a hit-and-miss procurement process, although recent purchases (Type 8, Rotems, Siemens, MPIs) have trended bad:
Rotems: Bad, could be terrible in the long run
Siemens: Good so far, but time will tell
Type 8s: Terrible
Kawasaki bilevels: Good
Type 7s: Very good, will last as long as the Type 8s
01800s: Good, could probably run 50 years with a refurb
01700s: Good.
Hawker-Siddeleys: Good, despite what the Orange Line looks like today after 35 years without a rebuild.
Boeing LRV: Bad, but they got 25 years out of 'em. (Also, joint procurement with Muni didn't help.)
Commuter Rail locos: All over the place (MPIs: BAD)
01500/01600s: Very good (still running)
Why can't the T buy more of
Why can't the T buy more of the good ones, instead of starting over from scratch and taking a gamble?
For example, instead of Type 8s or 9s, buy Type 7s with wheelchair lifts.
Instead of a brand new Red Line design, buy more 1800s, with incremental improvements.
When Toyota designs the 2018 Camry, they don't start from scratch. They start with the 2017 blueprints, even if the exterior gets a cosmetic redesign.
Things have changed since
Things have changed since then.
The ADA mandates at least partially low-floor trolleys. Also, onboard lifts, if feasible at all, would be maintenance-intensive, and time-consuming to operate, destroying headways. Also, doesn't having to incorporate some awkward kludge like that kinda defeat your point?
As to your final point... Compare a 1994 Camry with a 2017 Camry. It's a lot more than just a "cosmetic redesign".
Nevermind the fact that the T doesn't own the design, Bombardier does.
Really? Have a cite that high
Really? Have a cite that high-floor trolleys with onboard lifts aren't allowed?
Would a lift be that much slower than the Type 8's extending mini-ramp? A lift would have the advantage of serving street-running and non-8"-platform stops, which would provide accessibility at the remaining 31 inaccessible surface stops, and maybe even allow some service restoration or expansion.
Everything about the Type 8s *is* an awkward kludge, from the derailment-prone articulated section, to the expensive retrofit of the Type 7s to be compatible, to the stairs up at the front door and then more space-wasting stairs down again to the center section.
Yes, Camries changed a lot in 23 years. But they got there by a series of incremental hops. They didn't reinvent the car from the ground up at any point.
Maybe the T's next contract should say they get to keep the design.
Really? Have a cite that high
I just took a quick read through the ADA regulations for transit vehicle accessibility, and apparently lifts are still allowed for street-running systems. I stand corrected on that. I don't think the FTA would look very kindly on the T ordering high-floor trolleys under that exception though given that the vast majority of the system is not street-running. I don't know of a single other transit agency anywhere that has ordered new high-floor trolleys in the last 10 years, and I thought the reason was ADA compliance.
I still stand by an onboard lift being too slow and too expensive to maintain though.
And? This is all the more reason NOT to make new Type 7's that are full of awkward kludges.
Good luck getting anybody to bid on that! No manufacturer is going to design a subway car and then give away the rights to the design. They're all hoping they can recoup more of the R&D costs by marketing the car to other systems. If the T wants to own the rights to its own design of car, it needs to either desing it itself, or commission a design.